Technical Questions and Answers for RFP-DEM-11-12-020 Florida Statewide Comprehensive Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis 1) INVITATION The State of Florida Division of Emergency Management hereinafter referred to as the Division, requests written proposals from qualified respondents to develop a statewide, comprehensive, risk assessment, gap and vulnerability analysis. It is anticipated that the period of performance will begin on execution of contract and be effective for 18 months. 2) Answers (in bold type) to Technical questions 1. Document Reference: Special Conditions, Section 16.1(p.8) -- This provision indicates that All proposals must be typed or printed in ink. Can you confirm that computergenerated output formats, such as laser printing, are acceptable? Yes, computer generated output formats are acceptable. 2. Document Reference: Special Conditions, Section 17.2-5(p. 10) -- This provision requires that Proposer shall provide written documentation describing similar projects Can you provide the specific number of references of similar work required and/or desired to fulfill this requirement? There is no specific number of references required. 3. Document Reference: Scope of Work, Section I (p.17) -- This provision identifies the literature that will be included in the review. Can you provide an approximate total page count for all of the documents involved in the review set? Also, can you describe the approximate percentage of these documents that will be made available to the provider in electronic format vs. hard copy (paper) format? Because the list is non-exhaustive, a total page count cannot be adequately approximated. Of the specific literature listed, the majority of them (over 75%) are in electronic format. 4. To support the creation of a baseline analysis, would FDEM: a) Have interest in reviewing the Hazards Profile (that is being done under another contract), and have the selected contractor work with them to prioritize the hazards to be analyzed based on the THIRA process? At this time, the only requirement is outlined in the Attachment A - Scope of Work. b) Have interest in the contractor assessing prioritized sites within each region that are deemed to be at the greatest risk, or for which secondary impacts would be adversely affect community resiliency? See answer to question 4. a).
c) Have interest in the contractor building off the existing State Hazard Mitigation Plan, making edits where needed for new incidents and events that have occurred since the last update and using capability assessment information; and taking into account best practices and ideas from other plans (e.g., internal to FDEM, PDRP capacity assessments, and Rhode Island, etc.) See answer to question 4. a). d) Have interest in the consultant running the risk assessment at the county level and aggregate at the region, based on selected methodology. And, perhaps run a GIS analysis for similar multi-hazards (e.g., CBRNE and HAZMAT). This risk assessment will be done at the regional level and aggregate at the state level. 5. There are contradictory dates for the completion of the project, In Section II the dates have been adjusted to show the completion of Phase III to be required by January 31, 2013, while under Section IV the completion date is listed as June 30, 2013. The completion date is January 31, 2013. Amendments to the SOW have been made to reflect this. 6. The new RFP under the scope of work says that the risk assessment, gap and vulnerability analysis will follow FEMA s Guidance for Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (when published) Is there a draft available that we can utilize or is the anticipated guidance due out soon so that we may follow it? Yes 7. What is the total amount budgeted for this project? There is no set budget for this project; however, price does play a factor in the award selection. 8. Is the purpose of this project to provide guidance for the prioritization of grant funding or to a tool to develop strategies for future mitigation and risk reduction? Both 9. In Addendum 3 of the previous RFP the State identified that SHSGP funding would be utilized and the grant period ended July 30, 2013. Has the funding source changed? What is the new funding source? At this time, the Division is evaluating funding for this project. 10. Given the condensed timeline of this RFP (January 31, 2013) vs. the previous version (July 31, 2013) will the State permit the successful contractor to work on the phases concurrently as applicable? Yes, as applicable. Payment is tied with the completion of each phase.
11. Were all of the proposals thrown out based solely on price last time? The Division rejected all bids and chose to re-solicit for this project. 12. In Exhibit A, Section II, Summary of Project Deliverables, the Phase 3 deadline is posted as January 31, 2013; however, Section IV Schedule of Work and Payments indicates the project must be completed by June 30, 2013. Can you please confirm when the Phase 3 deliverables must be completed by? See answer to question 5 13. In Exhibit A, Section I, it says that the chosen contractor must have, at a minimum, a Level 1 security clearance for this project. Can you please clarify if this is a DHS-specific classification system, or a Florida State-specific system. Level I security clearance is a background check by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). This process may include information from both the state and national criminal history databases, i.e., searches for arrests, warrants, and other information pertaining to an individual. 14. Why was RFP DEM-11/12-015 not awarded? See answer to question 11 15. May we propose additional payment milestones? Contract payments are to be deliverable based in accordance with Chapter 287.058 (1) (e), Florida Statutes. The Division may negotiate a more intricate breakdown of deliverables with awarded contractor. 16. What level of fidelity of risk data is the Division of Emergency Management expecting to receive as a result of this effort? Data is expected to be at a level in which a more holistic understanding of Florida s risks is gained and a baseline for risk reduction strategies is established in order for the state to be adequately prepared to respond to any threat. 17. The provided schedule in the updated RFP shows a date of Jan 31, 2013 for completion of all deliverables, but the updated RFP also states that the project will be completed no later than June 30, 2013. Can you please clarify? See answer to question 5 18. The first paragraph of the updated Scope states that the risk assessment, gap and vulnerability analysis will follow the Federal Emergency Management Agency s guidance for Threat and Hazard identification and Risk Assessments (when published). Is use of this guidance a requirement, and if so how should it influence Phase 1 of the Scope?
Yes. Insofar as influence is concerned, the contractor should demonstrate to us in their proposal how they would go about this process. 19. The Scope requires the selected vendor to provide a recommendation of an appropriate frequency for subsequent assessments. Is the intent that the state will perform these recurring assessments in-house (without contractor/vendor support)? Unknown at this time. 20. Considering subsequent recurring assessments, is the use of contractor-proprietary tools encouraged or discouraged for this effort? Neither encouraged nor discouraged. 21. Will contractor-proprietary tools be allowed for tasks that do not influence the execution of subsequent recurring assessments? Yes. 22. Do all counties within each region have existing plans that can be provided to the successful proponent? Counties and regions have existing plans; however, this risk assessment will be done at the regional level and aggregate at the state level. 23. Do all regions have existing plans that can be provided to the successful proponent? See answer to question 22 24. Will a point of contact from each county be available to support the successful proponent with data collection? The County point of contact will be determined by the region. 25. Will a point of contact from each region be available to support the successful proponent with data collection? If so, will the regional contacts be physically located in their respective regions, or in a centralized region such as Tallahassee? Yes, contacts are positioned in each region. 26. Has a pilot region been identified? If so, can the region number be disclosed? A pilot region has not been determined. 27. What level of travel is anticipated for successful completion of the effort? This should be addressed by the contractor in the proposal. 28. Can an order of magnitude of available budget be provided for the project? See answer to question 7.
29. Can you please comment on the reason all bids were rejected for the first RFP? 30. Please clarify the expected period of performance of the project. On pg 2 of the RFP file, the first paragraph of the Introduction section states that the period of performance will be effective for 18 months, yet the final deliverables listed in section II of Exhibit A: Scope of Work are due within 10 months of the anticipated contract award date (by January 31, 2013). In section IV of Exhibit A: Scope of Work, it states that the project will be completed no later than June 30, 2012. See answer to question 5. 31. Exhibit B: Price Proposal still lists a deliverable in Phase III of providing Risk Assessment and Vulnerability for each county in Florida. This county-level deliverable has been deleted in the deliverables list in Exhibit A so should it be removed from Exhibit B as well? This information was posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS) on March 1, 2012 as Addendum # 1. 32. Can you provide an explanation of why the previous procurement was cancelled after bids were submitted? 33. The revised RFP (on pg 2 of Exhibit A: Scope of Work, last para in Section 1. before subsection 1. Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis) added a requirement that the contractor must have, at a minimum, a Level 1 security clearance for this project. Can you please clarify this requirement? See answer to question 13. 34. How do we propose an approach that is compliance with the THIRA guidance when that guidance has not been issued yet? Draft guidance currently available can be used. 35. Do the services requested include the "capability estimation" along with the gap analysis which are reported to be part of the new THIRA methodology? Services requested are a comprehensive, third party risk assessment, gap and vulnerability analysis. 36. The Scope indicates that we are to follow the THIRA methodology but mentions " the presentation of proposed methodologies". Are you looking for new methodologies based on the pending THIRA guidance or alternate methodologies? Either is acceptable 37. Regarding the "comprehensive risk assessment, gap and vulnerability analysis for each of Florida s seven regions" we need to understand more about the process, how much work we need to do to facilitate this or will the RDSTFs take on much of the effort?
The contractor should demonstrate in their proposal how they would go about this process. 38. Is this a distinct and separate RFP from, RFP-DEM-11/12-015 submitted at the end of January 2012? Yes a) Will the State of Florida explain if RFP-DEM-11/12-015 is still valid or has it be recalled? b) If it has been recalled in favor of this current RFP, please share the reasons for the recall and subsequent release of this RFP. 39. Is it the intent of the State of Florida to make an award on or about April 15, 2012 thereby anticipating Phase I completion within 40-45 days (May 31, 2012)? The Intent to Award will be posted on April 20, 2012 no later than 5pm. At the conclusion of the 72 protest period (which will end on April 25, 2012 at the same time as the posting of the Intent to Award on April 20, 2012), the Division will enter into a contract with the awarded contractor. 40. Summary of Deliverables and Budgets, Phase III has a published completion date of 1/31/2013. The next page, Section IV, Schedule of Work and Payments, Sub-section A includes A.., project, completed no later than June 30, 2013. Will the State of Florida explain the significance or difference between the two dates, primarily, reaffirm when Phase III must be completed by? See answer to question 5. 41. Section I of Exhibit A-Scope of Work requires that the contractor have, at a minimum Level 1 security clearance for the project. What are the requirements for obtaining a Level 1 security clearance with the State of Florida? Will the State consider certification by the U.S. Dept. of Defense to handle classified materials as sufficient to meet this requirement? See answer to question 13. 42. Section IV.A of Exhibit A-Scope of Work specifies that the project will be completed no later than June 30, 2013 while Section II specifies deliverables dates ending no later than January 2013. Does the State intend to realign with the deliverables calendar to conform with the project anticipated end date of June 30, 2013? This information was posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS) on March 9, 2012 as Addendum # 3.
43. Is it the intent of the State of Florida to bypass the county emergency management system in favor of research (current risk assessment and future gap analysis) only down to the regional level? Yes 44. If the answer to question 41 is an affirmative response, does the State of Florida have a plan to complete a comprehensive current risk assessment? Please share that plan. The current solicitation is for this purpose. 45. We note that the overall project deliverable dates have been condensed to reflect the removal of the County level assessments. Phase III now has 110 days available to conduct 6 Regional Assessments and the overall State Assessment, plus complete the Report and deliver Training. There appears to be an additional 150 days (up 30 th June 2013) available to complete the work. Is this a fair assumption? See answer to question 5. 46. The RFP states the principal product is the assessment and analysis for each region. Are you still expecting some form of assessment to be included at county level within the regional reports (as this will determine our final scope of work)? No 47. Does the 7 regions risk assessment cover all governmental bodies and agencies within Florida s 67 counties or should the assessment cover only regional level governmental bodies and agencies? Only covers the 7 regions and the State. 48. What type of format (excel spreadsheet, shape files, SQL, databases, etc) and quality of data (e.g. geospatial resolution, breakdown by asset type) would be available to support the actual risk assessment exercise? Only those outlined in Attachment A Scope of Work. 49. What is the approximate quantity of data to be expected for the analysis, say for example in terms of number of locations? Quantity of the data is unknown.